Pro-abortion
activists and organizations across the globe are still recovering from the
aftershocks of the election of Donald Trump, who campaigned on a pro-life
platform, and whose nominations for key cabinet positions embrace
individuals who are committed to the pro-life position including Vice-President
elect Mike Pence, Attorney General nominee Senator Jeff Sessions, Governor
Nikki Haley as Trump’s nominee for United Nations Ambassador, Congressman Tom
Price to head the department of Health and Human Services (HHS), DrBen Carson to oversee the department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Betsy DeVos to lead the Department of
Education and Congressman Mick Mulvaney to head the Office of Budget and
Management (OBM).

Abortion-advancing
activists had been strategizing on ways they could work with what they expected
would be the uber friendly pro-abortion administration of Hillary Clinton to
push international access to abortion but now face the reality of life under a
pro-life U.S. administration. In contrast, advocates for the unborn are
celebrating in the U.S. and around the world anticipating the pro-life actions
that President Trump will undertake in the U.S., at the United Nations and
abroad.

The most
pressing concern of abortion-minded NGOs is funding. Expectations are high that
President Trump will restore the U.S. ban on funding to foreign
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion and
refuse to stop these activities as a condition of receiving US funding. Foremost
of the foreign NGOs that have previously lost funding under the Mexico City
Policy are International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes
International (MSI); both operate affiliates in a large number of countries
with pro-life laws and restrictions.

This
month the pro-abortion European Parliamentary Forumon
Population & Development (EPF) documented Official Development Assistance
(ODA) for population control programs and for programs that include
“reproductive health” in Euromapping
2016.

It
reports that for the years 2011-14 the U.S. was the leading donor. The introduction expresses concern about the impact of the
election on U.S. contributions: “…the
very recent political developments in the United States (US) pose a threat. It
is very likely that the incoming US administration, the individual leading
donor in ODA, RMNCAH [Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health], and
FP [Family Planning], will follow the pattern of previous Republican
administrations, one that is hostile towards Sexual and Reproductive Health
(SRH) in general, and which will withdraw financial and political support for
RMNCAH and FP in US development policies.”

An
article in The Guardian—US
aid for women’s sexual health worldwide under threat— states, “Under Trump, campaigners say, $600m in aid
could be ‘cut drastically’….as they predict return to anti-abortion stance on
health funding.” Suzanne
Ehlers, president and CEO of PAI, is mentioned as stating that she is most fearful
of the loss of the US’s position as the world’s most generous bilateral donor
supporting reproductive health rights – with current funding
at $600m.

She
is quoted as saying, “Reagan wanted to
bring it down to zero. In Trump, we have the kind of president who wouldn’t be
afraid of that kind of budget request and Republicans in Congress who would
support him in that. Every year Congress has to approve these levels, and that
funding can be cut drastically.

“Trump’s
stated desire to restrict access to safe, legal abortion services, combined with the most regressive Republican Party
platform on sexual and reproductive rights,
spell disaster.Trump has put together an anti-choice
council to advisehim…Trump’s
repudiation of multilateralism means that, at best, the US will nolonger prioritize critical global
agreements, like the Sustainable Development Goals.”

US funding for the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) is also considered to be at risk as are US policies related
to abortion and the broad agenda of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”
that the current US Mission to the United Nations works hard to advance.

·“By the
end of January 2017, the US might stop funding IPPF by President Trump signing
what is known as the ‘Global Gag Rule’ (GGR). The GGR (also known as the
‘Mexico City Policy’ because it was first signed into law by President Reagan
in Mexico City in 1984) prevents any US funding from going to any organization
that is involved in any abortion-related activity, even if financially
supported by other donors. Any abortion-related activity can include referrals
and information about abortion and not necessarily involve providing abortion
services. In addition, within a few months, funding to UNFPA is likely to be
cut.

·“Moreover, the US will likely
develop an aggressive and proactive diplomatic strategy against SRHR and
women’s rights by trying to undermine SRHR language in UN settings. The first
cases where this may happen are the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in
March 2017 and the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) in April 2017
and any other UN settings where these issues may appear.

·“All in all, there is likely to
be an increase in the dissemination of anti-choice initiatives coming from the
US to the rest of the world. Eight years ago it came in the form of
‘abstinence-only’ education for HIV/AIDS prevention and was generously funded
by USAID through religious groups.

·“And to conclude, there is likely
to be a retreat of USAID from global efforts to improve SRHR in developing
countries, both in its bilateral aid as well as in its multi-lateral aid. In
addition to cutting UNFPA funding, the involvement of the US in FP2020 and the
Ouagadougou Partnership (which both aim to provide family planning in
developing countries) will be uncertain.”

If these
predictions come true, and we believe that they will, pro-life advocates around
the world will be rejoicing as the US for the first time in eight long years
will not be seeking to impose its agenda on countries that receive US
assistance.